Delhi District Court
Mohan Singh vs . Gurmail Singh & Ors. on 12 November, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF Sh. GAURAV SHARMA : MM : NI ACT-03
(CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
CC No. 511651/2016
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Ors.
U/s. : 147/148/149/323/325/506 IPC
Judgment pronounced after securing consent and presence of both
the parties/their counsels due to restrictive court functioning on
account of COVID pandemic
JUDGMENT :-
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : DLCT-02-0000011988 & 08.11.1988
b) Date of commission of offence : 25.05.1987
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Mohan Singh
d) Name of the accused : Alive Jasvinder Singh, Kartar Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Hardayal Singh, Darshan Singh and Baldev Singh Since Deceased Gurmail Singh, Joginder Singh, Kewal Singh, Gian Singh and Harbans Singh (Proceedings Abated)
e) Nature of offence complained of : 147/148/149/ 323/325/506 IPC
f) Plea of the accused persons : Accused persons plead not guilty
g) Final Order : Convicted u/s 147/323/325 509/149 IPC Acquitted u/s 148 IPC
h) Date of reserving the order : 01.02.2020
i) Date of order : 10.11.2020 Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 2Judgment
1. The present complaint was filed by Sh. Mohan Singh ('complainant') against 11 persons in all ('accused'), being Jasvinder Singh, Kartar Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Hardayal Singh, Darshan Singh, Baldev Singh, Gurmail Singh, Joginder Singh, Kewal Singh, Gian Singh and Harbans Singh. Out of these however, during the course of the trial, the latter five expired and proceedings qua them were abated. For the former six however, the trial proceedings were conducted as per law and duly concluded. The accused persons are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 147/148/149 read with section 34 IPC and S. 323/325/506 read with section 149 IPC. The allegations, pithily put, as disclosed in the complaint were that Ms. Manjeet Kaur, 'daughter' of the complainant, was married to one Kulvinder Singh and a son was also born out of the wedlock. However, there was marital discord between the couple, which spilled over to the families as well, and things were clearly, not as smooth. On 23.05.1987, complainant was informed that Sh. Joga Singh, 'father in law' of the daughter of the complainant had expired, upon which, the complainant and his 'son', Sh. Gurcharan Singh, had gone to the home of the deceased on 24.05.1987. From there however, they got to know, that the 'Choutha' ceremony in this regard was to be conducted the very next day, on 25.05.1987, the date of the 'incident in question'. On the said day, the complainant, his son, daughter and 'wife', Smt. Gurbachan Kaur reached the Sat Nagar cremation ground. There, they found Gurdeep Singh @ Bitto, s/o deceased Joga Singh, Hardayal Singh and Darshan Singh, both sons of maternal aunt of Kulvinder Singh standing at the gate alongwith 5-6 other persons as well. After seeing the complainant and his family members, accused Hardayal Singh went inside and brought 25-30 persons to stop them at the gate. As per the complaint, accused Baldev Singh was carrying a revolver/pistol, Joginder Singh a 'danda', and Hardayal Singh with Darshan Singh were wearing some blunt objects on their right hands meant for causing injuries whilst Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 3some others were also carrying kirpans. As per the version of the complainant, accused Gurmail Singh shouted at the daughter of the complainant 'tussi kyun aa gaye, tuhada phullan naal ki vasta, sada tuhade nal koi Rishta nahin'. With such utterances and without even waiting for any response, the said persons pounced upon the complainant and his family. Further, Joginder gave 2 'danda' blows on the left side of the head of the complainant, above forehead, causing severe injuries, Gurmail Singh hit him with fists and blows and Jasvinder Singh, 'son' of the deceased, hit at his back-waist with some blunt object causing him pain. 2-3 other persons as well took part in this beating given to the complainant. At this time, the complainant also stated that he heard Kartar Kaur, 'wife of the deceased', instigating the aggressors, i.e. the accused persons, to attack the complainant and his family by saying, 'inko jaan se khatm kar do'. As far as the daughter of the complainant was concerned, she was attacked by accused Gurdeep Singh @ Bitto, Kewal Singh and Gian Singh with some blunt object on her head because of which she started bleeding. When her mother, Smt. Gurbachan Kaur tried to shield her, accused Harbans Singh and Jasvinder Singh caught hold of her and Jasvinder Singh gave a blow on her nose resulting in fracture, as he was wearing some blunt object. The son of the complainant, Sh. Gurcharan Singh was also attacked by Hardayal Singh, Darshan Singh, Baldev Singh and a few others, resulting in fracture in his fingers and there being serious injuries on his head. In such circumstances, as per the complaint, the son of the complainant Sh. Gurcharan Singh, in order to protect himself and his family members, fired two shots in the air. During such scuffle, accused Hardayal Singh snatched away the pistol/revolver of Gurcharan Singh, gave it to one clean shaven person and both of them ran away in a car. Also, during such a fight, the magazine of the pistol/revolver had got out in the hand of the son of the complainant which was recovered by the police who came at the spot sometime thereafter (As per the complaint, 2 central room police and local police jeep were already there) Despite being the victims therefore at the hands of the Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 4accused persons, the complaint states that he and his family members were arrested u/s 107/151 CrPC and taken to RML hospital for medical. Himself, his wife and daughter were taken to PS Karol Bagh thereafter and shifted to PS Pahar Ganj at midnight. Moreover, the son of the complainant was separately booked under Section 506 IPC together with provisions of arms act. The complainant also alleges that his son was made to sign upon blank papers during his police custody remand, and also, their telephone no.8124129 was got noted down on such papers. There were no efforts made by the police to recover the pistol/revolver from the accused persons as well. The complainant and his family members were released on bail in the cross case however on 27.05.1987 and the succeeding two days 28.05.1987 & 29.05.1987 were holidays, because of which complaints were made to the LG and Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 30.05.1987, followed by reminders also on 28.07.1987 and 17.12.1987. (in the said cross FIR 380/87 PS: Karol Bagh ultimately, a finding of acquittal was recorded by Ld. MM. of the court concerned in favor of the complainant and his son) The sum and substance of such complaints were that the complainant and his family were wrongly inculpated by the accused persons. When no FIR was registered under the relevant sections by the police, the complainant made a complaint to the magisterial court. The same was initially dismissed but ultimately came to be allowed under revision and the present complaint case was registered. Hence the present prosecution.
2. The complainant examined three witnesses at the pre-summoning stage, being CW1 Mohan Singh, CW2 Gurbachan Kaur, CW3 Gurcharan Singh, and all the 11 accused were summoned vide order dated 25.05.1991 to face prosecution u/s 147/148/149/323/325/506 IPC. (Section 380 IPC was considered not made out and was dropped) Once the accused persons entered an appearance, Pre-charge evidence was led and a total of 10 witnesses were examined and cross examined. On 20.04.2011, Pre-charge evidence was thus closed. Thereafter, detailed Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 5order qua charges to be framed was passed on 20.11.2018. A formal charge for the offences punishable u/s 147/148/149/34, 323/149, 325/149 & 506/149 IPC was framed against Jasvinder Singh, Kartar Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Hardayal Singh, Darshan Singh and Baldev Singh vide order Dt. 22.12.2018, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (Vide order Dt. 13.12.2017, initially also an order framing charge was passed, but the same was set aside in revision proceedings Dt. 1.05.2018 and the charge order was passed again. Also, by that time, the remaining five accused had expired and hence case against them had abated) It must be mentioned here that all this while, several attempts were made by both the parties, to settle the matter and considerable time was granted for the same each time as per the requirement of the parties. but nothing fruitful transpired.
3. To prove its case, complainant has examined 10 witnesses, being PW1/CW1 Mohan Singh, CW2 Gurbachan Kaur, CW 3 Gurcharan Singh, PW 3 HC Jagbir Singh PS Karol Bagh, PW4/CW4 Jaswant Singh, Record Clerk RML hospital, PW5 Sanjeev Yadav Record Clerk Civil Hospital, PW6 Dr Raj Kumar, Retd DMS, DDU Hospital, PW 7 Jai Chand Record Clerk RML Hospital, PW8 HC Sanjay Yadav from office of DCP (Vigilance) Delhi, PW9 Shashikant Sharma, Asst at office of LG Delhi and PW 10 Manjeet Kaur. Out of these, the first three witnesses, as already noted, were examined at pre-summoning stage, the rest were examined and cross examined at pre-charge stage and the complainant, his son and daughter, were again cross examined at post-charge stage as well.
4. Complainant evidence at Post-Charge stage was finally closed on 24.07.2019 and Statement of all the six accused persons under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 02.08.2019 and 08.08.2019 wherein they all denied the case of complainant and pleaded innocence. The crux of their statements was that the complainant and his family had got to know about the 2nd marriage of Kulvinder Singh, and since then, they had been looking for an opportunity to trace him out and kill him. So, when they got Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 6to know of the death of Joga Singh, they intentionally came to the cremation ground for killing Kulvinder Singh. It was in fact stated by all the accused that no one had even informed/invited the complainant and his family to the venue and hence, they came by themselves with an intention to cause harm. Further, it was stated that at the gate of the cremation ground, the son of the complainant threatened them that they could not take the final remains of the deceased. Upon being resisted by the accused perrons, the son of the complainant took out his revolver/pistol and tried to shoot the accused persons. In such circumstances, people from adjoining akhara also gathered and tried to stop the complainant and his family, resulting in conflict between both the sides. As per the accused persons, the injuries sustained by the complainant and his family members were caused during such period when they were being tried to be stopped from carrying out their nefarious designs of killing Kulvinder and harming the family of the accused persons. The pistol/revolver was given away to a friend by the son of the complainant, so say the accused persons and in the meanwhile, the police came and rightly arrested the complainant and his family members. Some of their own family members were also arrested. All the medical documents placed by the complainant were stated to be fabricated. It was stated that Manjeet Kaur was after the property of the deceased Joga Singh, after having gone away from her husband, she had filed multiple cases against the accused persons and was acting at the behest of her father against the interest of the accused persons. Accused Kartar Kaur was stated to be not present at the place of the incident itself since it was averred that as per Hindu rites and customs, women couldn't attend such ceremonies. Accused Darshan Singh specifically also said that his right arm was fractured in January 1987, and hence he couldn't move or hold weapon, as alleged. Finally, accused Baldev Singh also stated that he was falsely implicated being a govt employee.
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 75. Accused persons examined just one witness, Ahlmad of the court concerned for placing on record documents pertaining to the cross FIR 380/1987 case. The defence evidence was thereafter closed.
6. During the course of the trial, following documents were filed on record:
(a) FIR of case against accused persons in another case by the complainant side u/s 498A/406 PS: Patel Nagar - Mark A
(b) True Copy of Complaint made to LG by the complainant Dt. 30/5/87 - Ex CW1/A
(c) Carbon Copy of Complaint to CP, Delhi by the complainant Dt. 28/7/87 - Ex CW1/B
(d) Carbon Copy of Complaint made to LG again Dt. 17.12.87 - Ex CW1/C
(e) Discharge Report of Gurcharan from RML Hospital Dt. 25/5/87 MLC 60298 - Mark C/Ex CW4/I
(f) MLC Civil Hospital Gurcharan Singh Dt. 26/5/87 - Mark B/ Ex PW5/A
(g) MLC 60297/RML Hospital ticket for outdoor patient Dt. 25/5/87 for Mohan Singh - Mark D/Ex PW4/D
(h) MLC 60300/RML Hospital ticket for outdoor patient Dt. 25/5/87 for Manjeet Kaur - Mark E/Ex PW4/E:
(i) MLC 60301/RML Hospital ticket for outdoor patient Dt. 25/5/87 for Gurbachan Kaur - Mark F/Ex PW4/F and Mark H5
(j) Documents prescribing X Ray of Gurbachan Kaur - Mark G, H, H1 (Ex PW4/H), H2, H3, H4
(k) RML Hospital Register Dt. 25/5/87 of in-patients for Gurcharan Singh - Ex PW4/A
(l) Circular from DGHS to Medical Superintendent Safdarjung -
letter to retain documents pertaining to pending cases OPD - 5yrs, In Patient Medical records - 10 yrs, Medico legal registers
- 10 yrs - Mark CW4/B/Mark A
(m) Store Room Register Jamatalashi articles for Mohan Singh - Ex PW3/A
(n) Order ACP Vigilance citing approval by DCP for destruction of old records upto 31/12/95 - Ex PW8/A Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 8(o) Certified Copies of related case Manjeet Kaur v Kulvinder put to PW 10 Manjeet Kaur Ex CW/DX1
(p) Application for Bail by Gurcharan Singh in Cross Case FIR 380/87 - Ex CW2/D1
(q) Application of Gurcharan Singh for medical examination in cross FIR 380/87 case - Ex CW2/X
(r) PW1 Manjeet Kaur evidence in S. 498A/406 Case PS Patel Nagar - Ex CW3/A (Colly 43 pgs)
(s) Document pertaining to 2nd marriage of Kulvinder - Ex CW3/DX3
(t) Certified Copy of testimony of Manjeet Kaur in related case Manjeet Kaur v Joga Singh Ex PW3/DX2/or Ex CW3/DX2 (u) Doc produced by Gurcharan for informing authority about pistol snatching - Ex CW2/AA (OSR)
(x) Copies of documents from cross case FIR 380/87 between the parties, being, Amended charge in cross case, original charge, c/sheet, List of witnesses, fir, site map, seizure, disclosure, application for medical, application for bail and judgment - Ex DW1/1 (Colly) DW1/2, DW1/3, DW1/4, DW1/5,DW1/6, DW1/7, DW1/8, DW1/9, DW1/C1
7. Final arguments were addressed from both the sides. Written submissions were also made on behalf of the accused persons. Presence of both the parties was secured amidst the restrictive court functioning and file was taken up for orders.
8. This court is conscious of the fact that in a criminal case, to convict an accused, the scale of proving its guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. From the accused side, the constant thread running through his defence has been that the present case was filed out of vendetta on account of strained relations between the parties, and it was prayed that since the evidence on record is only circumstantial and of interested witnesses, it should entail benefit for the accused persons, as proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is not possible in such a scenario. This argument Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 9however does not pass muster, as being a ground to close eyes in respect of the otherwise clear acts of the accused persons, constituting offences shown to be made out. There being interested witnesses can't be held as an impeding factor for ignoring the ills of any offending party, if proved by the evidence on record. This is more so since in a case where an occurrence takes place involving rival parties, related to each other, it is but inevitable that the evidence would be of a partisan nature. In such a situation to reject the entire evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan is to shut one's eyes to the realities on the ground. Large number of accused would go unpunished if such an easy course is charted. The evidence on record must be carefully examined in such cases and that task is taken up in the following paragraphs.
9. The first threshold which this court will need to steer clear will have to be forming satisfaction on the point that there indeed was an unlawful assembly comprising of accused persons on the date of the incident in question on 25.05.1987. This is so, since only when such a finding is made, can the accused persons be fastened with vicarious liability as having performed acts constituting offences, being part of such an unlawful assembly under other heads as well. If this is not able to be established, the case shall not proceed forward. In this context, the relevant provisions should be set out first that one shall be dealing with :
IPC "141. Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--
(First) -- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legis-lature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second) -- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third) -- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 10(Fourth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth) -- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.--An assembly which was not unlawful when it assem-bled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
142. Being member of unlawful assembly.--Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
10. As can be seen from the above, Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability on the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. The basis of the constructive guilt under Section 149 IPC is mere membership of the unlawful assembly with the requisite common object or knowledge. This section makes a member of the unlawful assembly responsible as a member for the acts of each and all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful assembly. While overt act and active participation may indicate common design of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. (Daya Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 11Kishan v. State of Haryana, (2010) 5 SCC 81)
11. The two essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC can thus be summarized as hereunder :
(1) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly, and (2) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
12. Once the court finds that these two ingredients are fulfilled, every person, who at the time of committing that offence was a member of the assembly has to be held guilty of that offence. After such a finding, it would not be open to the court to see as to who actually did the offensive act nor would it be open to the court to require the prosecution to prove which of the members did which of the offensive acts.
13. In view of the above therefore, let us advert to the facts of the case to first decide if there indeed was an unlawful assembly of accused persons which shared a common object. The presence of the five accused persons, except Kartar Kaur is not disputed. The accused persons have strenuously tried to make out a case that nobody had informed the complainant and his family members about the ceremony on 25.05.1987. They even questioned the complainant and his son about not placing on record call details showing that Gurmail Singh, as alleged, had informed them about the passing away of Joga Singh. But, all of this pales into insignificance as the version of the complainant that he alongwith his son, had indeed visited the house of Joga Singh on 24.05.1987 as remained uncontroverted. Their presence there has not been established to be fake in terms of their submissions. In fact, in Ex CW1/A in his complaint to the LG, Dt. 24/5/87, it has been also stated that Kulvinder Singh and his mother Kartar Kaur didn't even meet the complainant and his son, and they only met other accused persons, namely Harbans Singh, Gurmail Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 12Singh, Kewal Singh, Joginder Singh and Gian Singh including the grandmother of Kulvinder, among few others. It is also stated therein that upon such meeting, Gurmail Singh told them about the ceremony the day next, to which it was replied back and informed that the complainant and his family will also come and it was appreciated as well. These have not been contradicted sufficiently by the accused persons to accrue doubt qua the testimonies of the complainant and his family members. Even injuries, in person, due to the incident in question, were all inflicted upon the complainant and his family members. Copies of MLCs regarding them have been placed on record which have been casually suggested to be fake by the accused persons as not being original. Admittedly, concerned record clerks did say that the original records were destroyed but at the same time, they deposed too on the lines that the said copies on record are genuine. Testimony of PW4/CW4 Jaswant Singh is instructive in this regard. He was cross examined as well but nothing was extracted out from therein which could make his version appear unbelievable. He not only identified the MLCs but also identified the doctors concerned who had made such reports. He brought the admission register showing registered at sr.no. 16886 the MLC of Gurcharan Singh with no. 60298 conducted at 9.05 am on the relevant date. This was done when patient was admitted in orthopaedics ward, ground floor casualty Ex PW4/A (OSR). MLC for the complainant, his son, wife and daughter, bearing no. 60297, 60298, 60300 and 60301 Dt 25/5/87 were indeed stated to be destroyed vide circular 10-3/68MH Dt 31/8/68 Mark CW4/B, but nevertheless, he Identified the original OPD slips of the complainant, his wife and daughter produced in court, copies of which were already on record as Mark D, E and F. As stated above, he even identified handwriting of Dr A K Jain on MLC of the complainant and Dr Mukesh on that of his daughter and wife, stating that he had otherwise also seen the doctors writing during their tenure. (Ex CW4/D, E and F. (OSR)) Even the Follow up OPD slips of the wife of the complainant was identified to be having signatures of Dr Satish and Dr Jain (Ex CW4/H) likewise. The Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 13questions put to this witness were denied. In affect therefore, there was nothing extracted out by the accused persons from this witness to bring out the fabricated nature of these medical documents, as alleged. Similarly, PW5 Sanjeev Yadav Record Clerk Civil hospital proved MLC of son of the complainant, bearing no 624 Dt 26/5/87 by Dr Raj Kumar Ex PW5/A OSR. In his cross examination, he did say that the same was not made in his presence, but merely asking the same and not elaborately depicting as to how and under what manner the same can be said to be a fabricated document cannot serve the purpose of any defending accused. The said document is fairly self-explanatory, records details of injuries present and even refers to the observations of the RML hospital. By hurling, just a solitary question one can not expect to say that the veracity of the document stands demolished. On the contrary, the document looks to be trustworthy when read together with the facts and circumstances of the case. Finally, on this point the testimony of PW6 Dr Raj Kumar, Retd DMS, DDU Hospital is also material. He confirmed examining son of the complainant, MLC Ex PW5/A being in his handwriting and him having signed it. He also stated that upon his clinical examination, he formed a view of there being a fracture of proximal phalanx of right index finger of Gurcharan Singh, as written in MLC and compared favourably the same with similar observations being given Vide CR 16886 MLC 60298 UNIT 1 RML hospital, wherein it was mentioned also. In his cross examination, he stood his ground. Though he stated that x-ray wasn't performed since the concerned department was closed until then, but at the same time he also denied the suggestion given to him that there was no fracture or that he couldn't have said there being a fracture without X ray. He also denied by saying that it was wrong to say that he never examined the patient and fabricated the MLC at their instance. The version of this witness looks pretty clinching to the case of the complainant. X-Ray being done or not, the evaluation made by the doctor concerned, for which he found corroboration in the finding of the RML hospital also, as duly recorded in his report too, do not seem to be doubtworthy.
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 1414. One more point before concluding discussion on this aspect is the consistent stand of the accused persons that only copies have been placed on record with respect to the MLCs which cannot be read in evidence. One does not need prolix discussion to negate this submission as Sections 64 and 65 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 come to the aid of the complainant. Clause (c) of Section 65 prescribes that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the case when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time and such evidence as to the contents of the document is admissible. The destruction of the original documents is admitted. Therefore, the complainant was well within its right to prove its case for leading secondary evidence. And the same has been credibly proved, as discussed above.
15. Further, as per the accused persons themselves, the relations between the two sides were strained, multiple litigation was being carried on, so much so that the daughter of the complainant had even got a stay order for residing at the house of the deceased Joga Singh at Ballabhgarh. In such a scaenario, it will not be unsafe to conclude, that when the accused persons (barring accused Kartar Kaur for the time being) did see the complainant and his family, they formed the common object to harm them, as alleged and even the other 25-30 people, there came out at their instance to stop the complainant and his family members. In fact, since it has been noted above already that the complainant and his son had gone to the home of the deceased a day ago as well, the complainant version looks reasonable that being already irked, the accused persons had in fact this in their mind from before also that if they are confronted with the complainant and its family, they shall cause harm to them. The medical record bears testimony to that also. It is therefore concluded, that the accused persons did form an unlawful Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 15assembly sarin the common object of harming the other side within the meaning of Sections 141,142 and 149 IPC.
16. As far as even Kartar Kaur is concerned, it doesn't look an inspiring defence from her side to state that she wasn't present at the place of the incident in question on account of the Hindu rites not allowing women to take part in the final ceremonies of a deceased. It quite literally remains a bald assertion made at the time of recording statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC only. Whereas on the other side, all the family members of the complainant have deposed to the effect that she was very much there and was instigating the other accused persons by saying, 'inko jaan se khatm kar do'. Even the complainant had come there with two female members who also belonged to the same religion and still, had come to the ceremony. Also, it has been discussed above already that a day before also, Kartar Kaur had not even talked with the complainant and his son when they had visited her home, which has remained insufficiently challenged. More importantly, no pertinent question was asked by the counsels of the accused from the complainant witnesses on this aspect which could have brought out contradictions as to whether she was or she was not present at the scene of the incident. Making such an assertion only at the Section 313 CrPC stage without properly examining the complainant witnesses previously at this point does not augur well for the accused and goes on to reinforce the version of the complainant. It is therefore held that Kartar Kaur was indeed present at the spot and therefore, all the six accused persons formed an unlawful assembly.
17. Having concluded as aforesaid, let us now proceed to the charges u/s 147 and 148 IPC. For the same, the relevant provisions are noted as below :
IPC "146. Rioting.--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.CC No. 511651/2016 16
of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
147. Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
18. It is already concluded above that all the six accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly and hence, in that light one may look at the evidence on record to see if offences u/s 147 and 148 are made out. Taking Section 148 IPC first, it is imperative that for holding a weapon to be dangerous within the meaning of Section 148 IPC, court must form an opinion either on perusal of weapon or on perusing description of the weapon used, that the weapon is a dangerous weapon or in the alternative, there should be an opinion of the doctor that the injury found on the body of injured could have been caused by a dangerous weapon only. Here in the present case, as per the allegations of the complainant and the evidence on record, it is noted that 'danda' and some 'blunt object worn at hand' are the only weapons alleged to be used by the accused persons whilst inflicting injuries upon the complainant and his family. Other than such weapons, it has been stated that that injuries were caused by fists and blows by hand. The MLCs on record, as noted above, record that the complainant and its family members were assaulted, as must have been told by them to doctors. Other than that, there is no specific mention of any weapon thereon by which such injuries were caused as being dangerous or deadly. Even during their own deposition, the complainant witnesses did not state anything about any such weapon as being life threatening, per se. Of course, injuries in themselves do Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 17stand proved on the persons of the complainant and its family members, but, in terms of Section 148 IPC, to attract criminality the weapon used must be proved to be deadly, which has not been the case here. In view of the same, all the accused are acquitted of the charges u/s 148 IPC.
19. Coming to Section 147 IPC however, read alongwith Section 146, the case favours the complainant. The defence set up by the accused persons has been that Gurcharan Singh threatened the accused persons with is pistol/revolver and fired at them. In such a scenario, the accused persons tried to fend them off and people from the adjoining akhara also came at the spot upon listening to the fire shots. Even the police had come in sometime. The complainant and his family members tried to escape and, in that process, they suffered the injuries. To prove this line of defence, several questions were asked from the complainant and his family members on various aspects to show gaps in their version, but none of them shook the inherent factual foundation of the case. Other than minor inconsistencies, due to lapse of time mostly, the version of the complainant and its witnesses stood firm. The testimonies of complainant, his son and daughter are the most important to see how and in what manner they were able to withstand the onslaught of rigorous cross examination of seasoned counsels of the accused persons. They are discussed one by one below.
20. PW1 Mohan Singh explained that they all bled due to the violence of the accused persons and the same stands substantially established by the medical documents on record and the testimonies of related witnesses in its support, as noted above. The complainant stand that police didn't take their clothes for trial purposes is reasonably explained by the fact that multiple letters/reminders (Dt. 17/7/87 and 28/12/87) were written to superior authorities where the conduct of the police was also highlighted/stated to be suspect. Even officials were also named therein. The same is not denied or proved to be false. Moreover, it is also admitted that in view of these very efforts of complaining and writing constantly to Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 18several authorities, a case was ultimately registered against accused persons, albeit u/s 498A/406 IPC at PS Patel Nagar. Even as far as the allegation that Hardayal Singh went inside upon seeing the complainant and its family members, and even brought 25-30 people, the same has been insufficiently challenged by the accused persons in cross examination and the said stand has in fact remained quite consistent in all the testimonies of the witnesses of the complaint. About not making call at 100 no after such incident, the complainant explained "mauka nain mila' looks reasonable since they were admittedly hushed up to RML Hospital immediately. In fact, the complainant stated that they told the people taking them in the vehicle about the incident. With respect to injuries, the complainant explained further that they had told the doctors 'sasural walo ne maara peeta hai ladki ke'. Of course, the same is not mentioned on the MLCs, but them being assaulted is, which gels well with the explanation offered. The truthfulness of the allegations of the complainant are also borne out of the fact, that their case was also referred to Crime Branch Kamla Market after repeated written communications, and that is not specifically denied or challenged by the accused persons during cross examination. The same was also pointed out to have been mentioned in General Diary. About their clothes, it was explained by the complainant that he doesn't remember which clothes he was wearing, but also reasoned that they were shown in Section 498A case hearing, and this fact was also not challenged sufficiently during the cross examination.
21. As for Gurcharan Singh, on being questioned about the veracity of his medical examination, he explained that when he was produced in court in the cross FIR case, he didn't say about his medical but also pointed at the same time that he had requested for fresh medical before Police Custody was being granted, and the said fact is also proved by the testimony of the doctor concerned at civil hospital that such a medical was indeed conducted, discussed above already. He specifically stated it to be incorrect that when magazine of his pistol was forcibly taken by police, Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 19only then was his finger damaged. Gurcharan Singh also denied that his pistol was taken by his friend. In fact, to buttress this point, no other details of any such friend have been put to the witness is this regard and the same only seems an eyewash of an argument. On this point, he also elaborated that he, himself only gave the magazines to the police but they didn't record any statement at place of incident. With regards the medical as well, the witness also stated that IO reached the hospital only after MLCs were already prepared, and no cross questioning on this aspect has been made from the witness to contradict the same. With regards his pistol/revolver itself, the witness stated that he informed licensing authorities about it being snatched, about which Ex CW2/AA was also filed, in relation to which he also explained that that an application was made on 7.5.90 to SDM. Even tis as not been sufficiently challenged in the cross examination.
22. Finally, the daughter of the complainant Manjeet Kaur was also examined at the pre and post charge stages. The Ld. Counsel for the accused objected to adopting of her pre-charge evidence at post-charge stage. The same is not made out in view of the language of Section 246 CrPC which allows the accused to cross examine a witness, whose evidence was previously taken. If that be so, the witness shall of course adopt her evidence and shall not state everything afresh that was already recorded in her examination in chief earlier. Two applications on similar lines were also filed by the accused persons at different points of time during trial but they were both repelled as well. The testimony of this witness also remained consistent on the broader facts. As to her relationship with her in-laws, she even stated that her father even gave homage with folded hands but the accused persons were unwilling to settle scores. She admitted to the civil litigation between her and the in- laws but explained that the same was undertaken only when she was tried to be dispossessed from her matrimonial house and she had always wanted to remain with her in-laws . For the incident in question, she Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 20stated that it was wrong to say that public gathered because we were snatching the mortal remains of the deceased. She specifically denied all the injuries sustained by her and her family members being self-inflicted. Whatever contradiction in her deposition did not go to the root of the case to make the complainant version look untrustworthy.
23. As can be seen from the above, the accused persons were not able to crack open the sturdiness of the complainant's narrative at material points. Previous marital discord ensuing sour relations between the two families, cited as the motive to file this complaint against the accused persons also, could not be established to an extent to make the facts of the present case look false. Crying bad motive is not enough in itself, it has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. What appears is that the complainant and its family tried reaching out to the accused by visiting the site of the funeral but in return were forced to face their wrath. The circumstances of the case as noted above proves that. Therefore, violence does indeed is held to be proved as used by accused persons being part of the unlawful assembly and hence, they are all are vicariously convicted for offences u/s 147/149 IPC. Since conviction has been made using section 149 IPC, finding under section 34 IPC is not required/made.
24. With regards the offences u/s 323 and 325 IPC, the bare language of the relevant sections is reproduced below :
IPC '319. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
320. Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are desig-nated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 21(Fourthly) --Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
321. Voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt .322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt." Explanation.--A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing him-self to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 22may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
25. It must be noted that since the charge to be proved qua the accused persons is vide Section 149 vicariously, individual acts of hurt or grievous hurt is not to be shown/proved. Also, for coming to any conclusion about injuries on the person of the complainant and his family members, medical documents on record together with testimonies of witnesses have already been alluded to above. Specifically, with regards the injuries, it can be summarised again, as follows :
(a) Mark C/Ex CW4/I - Discharge Report of Gurcharan Singh from RML hospital Dt. 25/5/87 - Diagnosis - crackhead of right index finger 1x1 MLC 60298
(b) Mark B/ Ex PW5/A : Dt. 26/5/87 MLC 6 Civil Hospital Gurcharan Singh
- one mole right cheek 2', left eye 1.5'', and 7 injuries mentioned, injuries reported at RML confirmed and few simple injuries in addition noted, pertaining to /caused by same blunt object
(c) Mark D /Ex PW4/D : MLC 60297/RML hospital for outdoor patient 25/5/87 for Mohan Singh, injuries mentioned on the slip
(d) Mark E/Ex PW4/E : MLC 60300/RML hospital ticket for outdoor patient Dt. 25/5/87 for Manjeet Kaur, Bloody word clearly visible, alleged 'assault' also written there
(e) Mark F/Ex PW4/F and Mark H5 : MLC 60301/RML hospital ticket for outdoor patient Dt. 25/5/87 for Gurbachan Kaur, , alleged 'assault' also written there, vomiting, bleeding, injuries abrasion neck, blunt on nose, simple blunt, X-RAY nasal bone advised,
(f) Mark G, H, H1 (Ex PW4/H), H2,H3,H4 : X Ray of Gurbachan Kaur (in summoning order also, this is referred as showing fracture)
(g) Ex PW4/A 25/5/87 RML hospital Register of in-patients for Gurcharan Singh
26. The above record lends credence to the testimonies of the Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 23complainant witnesses, that Gurbachan Kaur suffered fracture of her nose and Gurcharan Singh at his fingers. The same being squarely covered within the meaning of Section 320 CrPC being grievous hurt and obviously, the circumstances as discussed in detail above, also show the intention being there to cause such injuries. Considering the same, on close scrutiny of evidence on record, evidence of doctor and other factual aspects and considering the ingredients of Section. 325 IPC, this court is of the opinion that all the accused persons, being part of unlawful assembly are vicariously convicted for offences u/s 325/149 IPC.
27. Similarly, other than the injuries of fracture, Mohan Singh, Manjeet Singh also suffered simple injuries, as borne out from the medical record. Their testimonies also amply support their claims and the same being corroborated by medical evidence with no reason to discard the said evidence which is otherwise satisfactory and acceptable, all the accused, being part of the unlawful assembly are vicariously convicted for offence u/s 323/149 IPC.
28. Finally, charge was also framed against all the accused persons u/s 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. To appreciate the same, relevant sections are noted below :
IPC "503. Criminal intimidation.--Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.CC No. 511651/2016 24
intimidation.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
29. Considering the above, it can be noted that to be an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, the threat should be a real one not just mere word. Also, the threat must be coupled with an intention to cause alarm. There should be a proximate nexus between the two. In the present case also, the threats advanced from the accused persons were indeed of such nature. They have been noted already but are again reproduced for proper reference :
Accused Gurmail Singh shouted at the daughter of the complainant 'tussi kyun aa gaye, tuhada phullan naal ki vasta, sada tuhade nal koi Rishta nahin' Kartar Kaur, wife of the deceased, instigating the aggressors, i.e. the accused persons, to attack the complainant and his family by saying, 'inko jaan se khatm kar do'
30. Moreover, the act of Hardayal Singh, in having gone inside the crematorium after seeing the complainant and his family and bringing out 25-30 persons with him was a threat in itself which ultimately coaxed Gurcharan Singh to fire in the air in self-defence. Also, this all was done to prevent the complainant and his family to enter inside the crematorium, which in itself again, constituted threat causing alarm. The version of the Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 25complainant has already been found believable and hence, charge of criminal intimidation is also clearly made out. The threats of the accused persons were very much real which ultimately did cause alarm and resulted in the entire incident that followed. The testimonies of the witnesses have been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and need not be reproduced here again as the facts remain the same. Considering the nature of threats advanced by the accused persons, being part of an unlawful assembly, all of them are vicariously convicted u/s 506/149 IPC.
31. The judgments relied upon by the accused are factually distinct and hence, not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. From perusal of the record of the case as above, the complainant has been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in the aforementioned terms and they are hereby convicted for the offences u/s 147/323/325/506/149 IPC and acquitted u/s 148/149 IPC.
32. The court appreciates the able assistance provided to it by Ld. Counsels on both the sides.
33. To be heard on sentencing 10.11.2020.
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV SHARMA
(Announced in open SHARMA Date: 2020.11.12
12:12:17 +05'30'
Court on 10.11.2020 ) (Gaurav Sharma )
MM/NI Act-03/Central.
10.11.2020
Judge Code: DL00855
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016
26
CC No. 511651/2016
10.11.2020
Present : Mr. Alvi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant
Mr. Mahesh Patel and Mr Parashar, Ld. Counsels for accused persons Vide separate judgment, accused persons Jasvinder Singh, Kartar Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Hardayal Singh, Darshan Singh, Baldev Singh are Convicted for the offences u/s 147/149/323/325/506 IPC and Acquitted u/s 148 IPC.
To be heard on sentencing on 12.11.2020.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded on district court website.
GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.11.12 12:12:47 +05'30' (Gaurav Sharma) MM/NI Act-03/Central.
10.11.2020 Judge Code: DL00855 Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 27IN THE COURT OF MR. GAURAV SHARMA : MM : NI ACT-03 (CENTRAL) : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
CC No. 511651/2016ORDER ON SENTENCE 12.11.2020 Present: Mr. Alvi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant All the accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsels Mr. Mahesh Kumar Patel and Mr Rishabh Jain Arguments on the point of sentence heard on behalf of the complainant and all the convicts.
All the convicts have prayed for taking a lenient view in the present matter, all of them being of advanced age individually, having medical problems and families to support. It is also contended that they have already faced trial for more than three decades and hence, they deserve to be favorably considered on point of sentencing. Applications to be released on probation have also been filed on behalf of accused Gurdeep Singh, Hardayal Singh and Baldev Singh As against the above, the complainant states that even he and his family have equally suffered through all this while, he himself is also of very old age, and therefore, maximum possible sentence be imposed on the convicts and compensation to the extent of Rs One lakh per convict be also awarded u/s 357 CrPC.
Record of the case file perused and submissions considered.
Effective Sentencing is at the very heart of judicial function. It should be proportionate on the one hand and also act as a deterrent on the other. If it is handed out casually and for namesake only, it neither alerts the wrongdoer nor prevents him from indulging in such acts in Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 28future. Moreover, absence of adequate sentencing may shake the confidence of the common man in the justice delivery system as a whole, tempting him to take resort to private vengeance. The courts of law are duty bound to ensure that such an eventuality does not arise.
It is true that the present case has indeed had a protracted trial and both the sides have had to bear the burden of it in equal measure. But this is no reason to wash out the offence complained off for which the convicts have been convicted. More so, in the case at hand, both the parties shared relations with each other on account of being in- laws of the daughter of the complainant. The terms between them however, haven't improved over the years one bit, sobriety with time and age hasn't quite visibly tempered the feeling of angst in any of them. This is so since this court on earlier occasions also, had tried its bit to explore possibilities of any settlement, as the record of the case suggested, that several such attempts were made previously as well. But neither of the side was willing to concede space, even after so many years. Considering the same, once a finding of conviction has been recorded now, sentencing should also be strictly in line with the punishment prescribed, dehors any other indulgent consideration. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to give the benefit of probation to any of the convicts. At the same time, invoking Section 357 CrPC also for granting compensation to the extent as claimed by the complainant is not found fit since both the parties have faced the trial with equal vigor throughout these years, the dispute being personal in nature.
Kartar Kaur For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - Maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - Maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - Maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016 29Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - Maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
Jasvinder Singh For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
In case of default in payment of fine, further sentence of simple imprisonment of 10 days shall be undergone by the convict.
Gurdeep Singh :
For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
In case of default in payment of fine, further sentence of simple imprisonment of 10 days shall be undergone by the convict.
Hardayal Singh For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.CC No. 511651/2016 30
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
In case of default in payment of fine, further sentence of simple imprisonment of 10 days shall be undergone by the convict.
Baldev Singh For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
In case of default in payment of fine, further sentence of simple imprisonment of 10 days shall be undergone by the convict.
Darshan Singh For offence u/s 147/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 323/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per the said section of Rs 1,000/-
For offence u/s 325/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
For offence u/s 506/149 IPC - 6 months simple imprisonment and maximum fine as per section 29 CrPC of Rs 10,000/-
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.CC No. 511651/2016 31
In case of default in payment of fine, further sentence of simple imprisonment of 10 days shall be undergone by the convict.
All the sentences imposed as above, shall run concurrently for each of the convict and benefit of set off against previous imprisonment, if any, be also given to each of the convict as per law.
Convicts be released immediately upon serving the period of sentence, if not wanted in any other case.
Copy of the Judgment and order on sentence has been handed over/supplied to all the convicts free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV SHARMA
(Announced in open SHARMA Date: 2020.11.12
12:13:26 +05'30'
Court on 12.11.2020 ) (Gaurav Sharma)
MM/NI Act-03/Central.
12.11.2020
Judge Code: DL00855
Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.
CC No. 511651/2016
32
CC No. 511651/2016
12.11.2020
Present: Mr. Alvi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant
All the accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsels Mr. Mahesh Kumar Patel and Mr Rishabh Jain Order on sentence announced separately. At this stage, applications u/s 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and for bail have been moved on behalf of all the convicts.
Heard.
Considering the reasons stated in the applications and provisions under S. 389 CrPC, all the convicts are admitted to bail on furnishing of fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for the period of one month from today for the purpose of allowing the convicts to file appeal. Bail bonds have been furnished and accepted till 11.12.2020.
Convicts are directed to appear before the court on 11.12.2020.Digitally signed by GAURAV SHARMA
GAURAV SHARMA Date: 2020.11.12 12:14:01 +05'30' (Gaurav Sharma) MM/NI Act-03/Central.
12.11.2020 Judge Code: DL00855 Mohan Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh & Anr.CC No. 511651/2016